The European Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, has suggested that Europe should enhance its defence spending by 1.5 % of GDP over the typical 2.0 % that Western countries are currently spending.
She fears that Europe is then required to defend itself and is aware that the United States is unlikely to be a hero if Europe encounters difficulties. The presidency of Donald Trump is already indicating a significant change in NATO.
In the future, according to reports circulating in Washington, NATO should be led by either a British or French general ( presuming Germany doesn’t have any generals! ). Washington wants to change that because the best NATO common has always been an American.
Overall, the proposal from the European Commission would be 843 billion euros ($ 90,000 ). The EU may fly debts totaling around 150 billion dollars raised on capital markets to assist member states in navigating the proposed increase in spending.
It is unclear who would be granted these loans, what terms and conditions may apply, and which economies do support servicing them.
On the news, Western security stocks rose sharply. However, the space between desire and revelation is enormous.
Major financial issues are currently plaguing European nations because of the significant increase in energy prices in the majority of Europe. Germany is currently in a crisis, and it is slowly shifting some of its manufacturing to the United States.
The bigger issue, however, is hidden beneath the surface of the defence companies in Europe.
According to a report from the reputable European think tank Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the majority of them are rarely competitive, and the cost of security hardware is unnecessarily high. The Von Der Leyen request follows precisely the Kiel-approved increase in the amount of money needed in Europe.
A major issue is that having more vehicles and weapons requires more troops, perhaps between 300,000 and 500,000 boots on the ground. There is hardly any chance of developing one because for a power is undoubtedly absent from Europe. It’s impossible to build a warehouse full of products without any providers. Raising and paying for an troops are necessary.
In Europe, there is no movement in that direction. It helps explain one of Volodymyr Zelensky’s claims that Ukraine could provide the men Europe needed, but the majority of the time it relies on Russian forces to fight.
Even if there is peace in Ukraine, it will still get a few decades and a lot of money to train an army that largely does not understand any of Europe’s languages.
In addition, if the reports about North Korean forces fighting with Russia in the Kursk region ( e .g., on Russian territory ), it is a bad idea in terms of practice. Why did a Russian feel the need to defend Warsaw or Paris?
As a previous head of the North American department of Italy’s largest defense company, I am aware that Western defense companies are slow, inefficient, and often help the hardware that leaves their factories.
Additionally, Western defence companies frequently clash over production shares, which causes further delays in manufacturing and deployment. If these businesses are stuffed with a lot of money, it’s likely to cause them to become more greedy rather than experience an outflow of technology.
There are also, undoubtedly, questions about what kind of technology, how far, and who will produce it. Not all of the technology in Europe has worked as well as it should. The German-made Leopard cylinder, which everyone in Ukraine had anticipated, was undoubtedly a disappointment.
Another issue is weather defense. Europe is behind in terms of modern surroundings threats, particularly in the field of long-range nuclear missiles. Russia’s fresh Oreshnik hypersonic weapon, which was launched for the first time in Ukraine in November, provided a strong indication that they have cause to be concerned.
The Europeans typically look to the US ( Aegis Ashore ) or Israel ( Arrow 3 ), respectively, for solutions to the issue. Goods will they be included in the new defence spending target? They will likely have to do so because many of the systems required by Europe are produced outside of the EU.
US and Israeli defence firms may obtain a lot of business if the Europeans really raise the funding the EU Commission recommends ( which requires each nation to increase its defence spending and draw the funds from its national budget ).
There is also the alarming threat of goods from problematic countries, particularly China. Russia and China both mesmerize Europe, but they are not, like some of their American peers, constantly looking for business.
Currently, China is the source of a lot of the parts used in martial drones. There is a chance that China will eventually become a cheap supplier of hardware, rockets, and electronic components ( where Europe’s manufacturing base is insufficient ).
In the end, it’s unlikely that proposals to substantially increase defence spending in Europe will be made. The final 50 years of Uncle Sam’s real job are over, but Europe is almost completely ready to act collectively.
Some nations, to borrow a few examples, are spending money on security because they know they had. Some, not so much. Great talk and poor performance Investors in German security stocks ought to take note.
Former US assistant secretary of defense for plan, Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent for Asia Times. This post, which was previously published in Weapons and Strategy, his Substack newsletter, is republished with authority.